My Taj Mahal Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Here's a good example to illustrate the fact that something can indeed be "out there" beyond empirical detection:

• Suppose you were reduced to a fish in a pond with other fish. You all can communicate and are very intelligent. You know what you know now, but the other fish don't. They know nothing beyond "that barrier" they grew up under --- (the pond's surface).

How would you convince your fish friends the Taj Mahal exists?

 

[Washington]

Here's a good example to illustrate the fact that something can indeed be "out there" beyond empirical detection:

• 
  [*]Suppose you were reduced to a fish in a pond with other fish. You all can communicate and are very intelligent. You know what you know now, but the other fish don't. They know nothing beyond "that barrier" they grew up under --- (the pond's surface).

How would you convince your fish friends the Taj Mahal exists?

I wouldn't waste my time. Why should they believe me?

 

[AV1611VET]

...

 

[Lazuline]

I'd try to present some sort of evidence that I do indeed know such things. If I couldn't think of anything (certainly nothing's coming to mind at the moment), I wouldn't even try to convince them—they'd be fools to believe me.

 

[[serious]]

Here's a good example to illustrate the fact that something can indeed be "out there" beyond empirical detection:

• 
  [*]Suppose you were reduced to a fish in a pond with other fish. You all can communicate and are very intelligent. You know what you know now, but the other fish don't. They know nothing beyond "that barrier" they grew up under --- (the pond's surface).

How would you convince your fish friends the Taj Mahal exists?

1. photographic evidence
2. invent a powered fish bowl that would bring them to it and allow them to return
3. use telescopes/periscopes to find it

...

???

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'd try to present some sort of evidence that I do indeed know such things. If I couldn't think of anything (certainly nothing's coming to mind at the moment), I wouldn't even try to convince them—they'd be fools to believe me.

if there is no actual evidence, they'd be fools to be convinced, as would you

 

[Washington]

...

What am I going to tell them?

Me: Hey, fishy friends did you know there's building on the dry land in India called the Taj Mahal.​

Fish friend #1. What's a building?​

Fish friend #2. What is "dry"?​

Fish friend #3. What is "dry land"?​

Fish friend #4. What is an India?​

Me: A building is a man made construction that . . .​

Fish friend #1. What is a "man"?​

Fish friend #2. What does "man made" mean?​

Fish friend #3. "Construction"? Now your just making up nonsense words.​

Me: A man is a mammal . . .​

Fish friend #4. "mammal"?????​

Me: Oh never mind.​

Yeah, Excellent example to illustrate the fact that something can indeed be "out there" beyond empirical detection:

 

[stan1980]

What am I going to tell them?

Me: Hey, fishy friends did you know there's building on the dry land in India called the Taj Mahal.​

Fish friend #1. What's a building?​

Fish friend #2. What is "dry"?​

Fish friend #3. What is "dry land"?​

Fish friend #4. What is an India?​

Me: A building is a man made construction that . . .​

Fish friend #1. What is a "man"?​

Fish friend #2. What does "man made" mean?​

Fish friend #3. "Construction"? Now your just making up nonsense words.​

Me: A man is a mammal . . .​

Fish friend #4. "mammal"?????​

Me: Oh never mind.​

Yeah, Excellent example to illustrate the fact that something can indeed be "out there" beyond empirical detection:

lol

 

[Bushido216]

It wouldn't be beyond empirical detection, just beyond our personal ability to detect it empirically. This isn't the same as God which prima facie is undetectable.

Epic fail.

 

[Asimov]

How would you convince your fish friends the Taj Mahal exists?

???

 

[stan1980]

It wouldn't be beyond empirical detection, just beyond our personal ability to detect it empirically. This isn't the same as God which prima facie is undetectable.

Epic fail.

Yep

 

[peter22]

Here's a good example to illustrate the fact that something can indeed be "out there" beyond empirical detection:

• 
  [*]Suppose you were reduced to a fish in a pond with other fish. You all can communicate and are very intelligent. You know what you know now, but the other fish don't. They know nothing beyond "that barrier" they grew up under --- (the pond's surface).

How would you convince your fish friends the Taj Mahal exists?

Is this in reference to your 'understanding' of evolution?

 

[Bushido216]

I think as someone else pointed out he's attempting to demonstrate that a thing can exist which is beyond the ability to be located or found (given one's circumstances). That being said, I'm not a fish and God can't be tested, so this is moot and a rather silly "challenge".

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd try to present some sort of evidence that I do indeed know such things. If I couldn't think of anything (certainly nothing's coming to mind at the moment), I wouldn't even try to convince them—they'd be fools to believe me.

They would be wrong though, if they refused to believe you, wouldn't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

if there is no actual evidence, they'd be fools to be convinced, as would you

You left a major step out, I asked how you would convince them? Your answer is starting with the fact that they've already been convinced.

 

[AV1611VET]

What am I going to tell them?

Me: Hey, fishy friends did you know there's building on the dry land in India called the Taj Mahal.​

Fish friend #1. What's a building?​

Fish friend #2. What is "dry"?​

Fish friend #3. What is "dry land"?​

Fish friend #4. What is an India?​

Me: A building is a man made construction that . . .​

Fish friend #1. What is a "man"?​

Fish friend #2. What does "man made" mean?​

Fish friend #3. "Construction"? Now your just making up nonsense words.​

Me: A man is a mammal . . .​

Fish friend #4. "mammal"?????​

Me: Oh never mind.​

Yeah, Excellent example to illustrate the fact that something can indeed be "out there" beyond empirical detection:

I didn't ask how you wouldn't convince them --- I asked how you would convince them.

 

[AV1611VET]

It wouldn't be beyond empirical detection, just beyond our personal ability to detect it empirically. This isn't the same as God which prima facie is undetectable.

Epic fail.

Fair enough --- I struggled with what term to use here. I teetered between "beyond empirical detection" and "beyond conventional means of detection," but just decided that they'd know what I'm talking about.

Do you have an answer, btw?

 

[AV1611VET]

???

Hmmm --- that might do it, Asimov --- but I kinda doubt it.

 

[Bushido216]

No. Because it's an asinine question with no point and no usefulness. It bears no relevance whatsoever to any topics on hand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this in reference to your 'understanding' of evolution?

No --- it's a question about you being in a pond with other fish, and how you'd convince them the Taj Mahal exists. See now why I call these "challenges"? The challenge is getting an honest answer.